Hansaria, J. — This batch of writ petitions assails notices issued to the petitioner under section 19-A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, hereinafter the Act. The notices under section 19 A issued relating to the periods ending on 309.69,31.3.70, 30.9.70, 31.3.71, 3l.9.71, 31.3.72, 30 U2, 1.3.73, 30.9.73, and 31.3.74. As identical notices were issued for all the periods, and as common argument have been advanced relating to the infirmities in the notices, we are disposing of these petitions by this common order. 2. Notice under section 19-A of the Act can be issued if upon information which has come to the knowledge of the issuing authority, he is satisfied that any turn-over in respect of sales on any tax chargeable has, inter alia, escaped assessment or has been under assessed The notice is required to be issued within 8 years of the end of the period of assessment. As identical notices were issued in the present case, we may note one notice which is in the following language. "Whereas from the information in my possession I have reasons to believe that during the return period ending on 31.3.72 1. Your turnover in respect of sales of goods chargeable to tax under the Act ;- i) has escaped assessment, or ii) has been under-assessed to the extent of about Rs. 102933.00 or iii) *** *** JJ *** *** And whereas it is proposed to assess or re-assess you in respect of the said return period, you are hereby required :- a) *** *** b) either to attend in person to produce or to cause to be produced in my office on 30.3.78 at 11 AM the accounts and or documents specified overleaf. In case of your failure to comply with the terms of this notice, you will be liable to assessment or re-assessment to the best of my judgment and to other penalties without further reference to you. 3. After the notices were issued, the assessee desired to know the basis of issuing notices and the assessee did not comply with the notices. A further notice was issued which stated that re-assess­ment shall be made to the best of the judgment of the authority concerned on the basis of the following information : “1. The F. C. I.'s letter No. E/20 (2)/18-70 dt. A further notice was issued which stated that re-assess­ment shall be made to the best of the judgment of the authority concerned on the basis of the following information : “1. The F. C. I.'s letter No. E/20 (2)/18-70 dt. 25.4.70 addressed to you (which was not produced before the assessing authority, in connection with completion of assessment u/s 17 (3) of the Assam Sales Tax Act/47) reveals that, while purchasing wheat from the F.C.I, you were to pay sale tax @ 16 paise per quintal of wheat. 2. On enquiry it is learnt that one bag of wheat contains around 95 kgs of wheat. Accordingly sales tax per bag is arrived at 15 paise and the implied value of each gunny bag stands at Rs. 2-65 ( 2-50 net + 0"15 tax ). 3. It is presumed that you at the time of selling wheat products have charged Rs. 2-65 per bag and as such you are to realies Sales tax @ 15 paise per bag where you have been assessed at a much lower rate." 4. Instead of showing any cause before the issuing authority who was the Superintendent of Taxes, Sibsagar the present petitions were filed as ailing the validity of the notices. It is not in dispute that if the conditions precedent for the issue of notice be not in existence, it is open to an assessee to assail the same before this Court invoking its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Let us therefore see whether there was any material before the Superintendent of Taxes to satisfy him that there had been under-assessment. Shri Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Food Corporation of India's ( F. C. I.'s) letter which formed the bed-rock of the issuance of notice does not indicate anything about escaped assessment or under-assessment. A perusal of the letter of the F. C. f,, copy of which is at Annexure-F of Civil Rule No. 151/78, shows that as per this letter the assessee was to give Declaration Form to the Food Corporation of India on failure to pay sales tax on gunny bags 0-16 paise per quintal of wheat. A perusal of the letter of the F. C. f,, copy of which is at Annexure-F of Civil Rule No. 151/78, shows that as per this letter the assessee was to give Declaration Form to the Food Corporation of India on failure to pay sales tax on gunny bags 0-16 paise per quintal of wheat. Shri Sen submits that this is not a new piece of infor­mation coming to the knowledge of the Superintendent of Taxes inasmuch as the Superintendent of Taxes had issued a book con­taining Declaration Forms which had been supplied according to the assessee to the Food Corporation of India while obtaining the consign­ment of wheat We do not think that merely because a book containing Declaration Forms had been handed over duly signed by the Superintendent of Taxes, it can be said that the Superintendent of Taxes was aware of the fact that the assessee had purchased some quantity of wheat from the F.C.I. It is common knowledge that such Declaration Forms are given in advance and at the time of entering transactions these forms are used after filling in the required particulars. From the issuance of Declaration Forms, it cannot be inferred that the taxing authority while making the assess­ment was aware of the transactions entered into between the FCI and the assessee. We, therefore, think that the letter in question of the F.C.I, was ia the nature of an information to the Superin­tendent of Taxes which clothed him with the right to issue notice under section 19-A of the Act. The position which emerges is that if the assessee had given Declaration Forms and would be able to satisfy the taxing authority in this regard it would not be required to pay any sales tax. If, on the other hand, it had not given any Declaration Form, there is no denial that it has to pay Sales Tax @ 0'16 paise per quintal of wheat. If the assessee had failed to dis­close this at the time of first assessment we are of the view that it could be called upon subsequently to pay sales tax. 6. This is not all. If the assessee had failed to dis­close this at the time of first assessment we are of the view that it could be called upon subsequently to pay sales tax. 6. This is not all. After the information had come to the notice of the Inspector of Taxes, he made an enquiry and submitted a report on 13.9.77 wherein it was indicated that the petitioner had realised Sales Tax @ 0-16 paise per bag from the purchaser of wheat products. Now, if this information was derived by the Superintendent of Taxes after he had made the assessment, this would definitely be a pertinent information relying on which notices under section 19-A of the Act could have been issued inasmuch as this would show that the assessee had realised taxes from the purchasers but had not mentioned about the same in his return. 7. In any view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the condition precedent for the issuance of notice under section 19-A did exist in the present case. Though Shri Sen referred in this connection to M/s Sikaria Sons & Co. vs. Superintendent of Taxes, 1973 ALR 331, according to us, this decision cannot help the assessee inasmuch as on the materials as then had presented to the Court in that case it was held that the information on the basis of which the notice under section 19-A was issued had not been received subsequent to the assessment order. The facts of the present case are, however, different. Shri Sen has also submitted that the reasons disclosed, which have been noted above, speak of two information coming to the notice of the Superintendent of Taxes one was derived from the letter of FCI and another was a presumption derived from the enquiry. Learned counsel submits that so far as the first information is concerned the same may be a good ground for issuing notice under section 19-A of the Act, but no notice could have been issued on the presumption that at the time of sale of wheat products the assessee had realised the sales tax also. In this regard we would like to say that the presumption which was drawn by the Superintendent of Taxes was based on the enquiry report of the Inspector of Taxes of which reference has been made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. 8. In this regard we would like to say that the presumption which was drawn by the Superintendent of Taxes was based on the enquiry report of the Inspector of Taxes of which reference has been made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. 8. A specific point has been urged in Civil Rule No. 151/78 relating to the notice m this case being barred by limitation. As already noted, a notice has to be issued within a period of 8 years of the end of the period in question. This Civil Rule deals with the period ending on 30.9.69 and the notice under section 19-A was issued on ?0 6 77. According to us, while calculating the period of limitation, the same has to be counted from 1. 10. 69 and not from 30.9.69 in view of what has been slated in section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The notice having been issued on 30.9.77 was thus just in time inasmuch as the 8-year period would have expired on the close of 30.9.7-. 9. In the result, we do not find sufficient material to interfere or to quash the notice issued in the present case. The assessee shall however be furnished with the copy of the report submitted by the Inspector of Taxes of which reference has been made in the counter-affidavit. This would be done at an early date after which it would be open to the assessee to show cause within a reasonable time where after assessment if necessary, shall be made in accordance with law. Phukan J, — I agree.